Millionaire versus Billionaire: The Final Frontier?

This year’s presidential contest, now thankfully heading into the final stretch of campaigning, makes one wonder how much longer the American people will tolerate a political system of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. No matter your political affiliation, ideology or beliefs, it’s likely that both major party candidates strike you as being mucho unsavory.

Of course Donald Trump is the worst. An unhinged egomaniac with few equals, Trump could be called a fraud if he didn’t actually believe his every boast.  Nevertheless, he’s not to be trusted.  Rather than serve as president of the United States, I would think it’s still not to late to either hospitalize him (involuntarily, of course) or incarcerate him for something along the order of business fraud or tax evasion.  Yes, he’s that crazy and that corrupt, and it speaks to our rigged socioeconomic and political systems that a man like him is allowed to get wealthy at the expense of others.

Many people call Trump a fascist and maybe he would become our dictator-for-life under the right circumstances. But he reminds me more of Silvio Berlusconi, the four-time prime minister of Italy who dominated Italian politics for most of the 1990s and the beginning of this century.  A billionaire who, like Trump, adores the limelight (albeit in a much raunchier fashion), Berlusconi flaunted his wealth while claiming to be a man of the people and his nation’s salvation: the name of his political party translates as “Go Italy” in English.

For years, numerous corruption charges failed to stick and Berlusconi became the longest-serving prime minister in post-war Italy.  Finally, the Eurozone crisis weakened him enough in 2011 to politically do him in for good – we hope.

That would be the best possible outcome of a Trump presidency: the man’s policies would surely bring about an economic and social crisis of mammoth proportions, leading to his ignominious downfall as well as (again, we hope) an end to the long-standing aforementioned setup of-for-and-by the rich.

As for Hillary Clinton, we all know she’ll lie at the drop of a hat. The email scandal demonstrates just what your parents told you about liars: after the first fib, they just keep telling more and more, even after they’ve been caught. We know just how venal she is, too, her profitable speechifying and the pay-to-play scandal being just two examples.  As for the business of scamming people, we’ve heard about Trump University but what about Laureate International Universities?

It seems that Bill Clinton was paid somewhere between $16 and $17 million to act as “honorary chancellor” of this for-profit chain of secondary schools from 2010 to 2015.

Suffice it to say that Laureate has a crushing debt load, still managed to generously contribute to the Clinton Foundation, disdains the trappings of ordinary universities (curriculum, syllabi, degrees, grades) and admitted to the Security and Exchange Commission that it has “weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting.”

Trust Hillary (or anybody named Clinton)?  I don’t think so.

Ruling-class consensus

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this election is that the ruling class is lining up solidly behind one candidate – Hillary Clinton. With a majority of the country’s money- and power-brokers supporting her, which proverbial angel dancing on her shoulders and whispering in her ears, do you think Hillary Clinton is going to listen to: the one advocating debt relief for students, justice for the harassed and incarcerated, a fairer tax structure, etc.; or the advocate of the continuation of trickle-down lite?

And almost certainly, a Clinton II presidency would do nothing to change our government’s aggressive, neo-imperialist foreign policy.

Our senatorial race in Pennsylvania also epitomizes the current situation: millionaire GOP incumbent Pat Toomey is facing off against millionaire Democrat Katie McGinty.  McGinty wins by default over a man who would do away with the increasingly symbolic corporate income tax. However, both campaigns have been absolutely masterful at pointing out the upper-class shenanigans of the other.  Katie McGinty might have working-class roots, but her track record makes her promise to champion the “middle class” hard to believe.

It’s a sad situation. Whether you hold your nose when you go to the polls and vote for a Democrat, or cast a ballot for a third party candidate like the Green Party’s Jill Stein, you know the outcome is going to be less than optimal for those of us who want international peace, an end to institutional racism and sexism, progress toward economic equality, and real action on climate change. Therefore, when the election is over it will be good to remember and heed the words of Joe Hill:

“Don’t waste time mourning.  Organize.”

— James Collins

Good Cop, Bad

Cameron McLay is a good cop and wants to be a good chief of police for Pittsburgh.  Even as police nationwide continue to shoot people of color, particularly African Americans, as if it’s hunting season, in McLay’s two years as police chief, complaints against Pittsburgh police are way down and lawsuits against the city have dropped by 50 percent.  In these two years City of Pittsburgh police have also avoided the stark, racist shootings and beatings of black folk that have sparked outrage, protests and rebellions across the country.

That’s saying something for a department once cited by the Justice Department for using excessive force, making false arrests, carrying out improper searches and seizures, and failing to supervise and discipline rogue officers.

But the majority of rank-and-file officers have “no confidence” in their chief, as demonstrated by a recent poll taken by their union, the FOP. That poll is nonbinding and the last Pittsburgh chief to lose one ended up serving ten more years, but one shouldn’t count on such an outcome in today’s law-and-order America.  A spike in crime (visible crime against people and property, that is; not the white-collar kind), the rise of a charismatic politician adept at playing the law-and-order (or race) card, or any number of unforeseeable occurrences could turn McLay into a casualty of his good intentions.

McLay has staked his legacy as chief on community policing – repairing, building and maintaining relationships with the people of the communities that his force polices.  Coming to Pittsburgh from Madison, Wisconsin, he has been vocal in criticizing the old department’s ways and proactive in making changes.

There’s one thing McLay cannot change: the police protect some communities and police others.  There is never much tension between the police and the protected communities, but the second type of community often experiences the police as an occupying force.  McLay is trying to change how black communities are policed, but is he – or his boss, the mayor – even aware of the larger protected/policed dichotomy?

But just being nicer to oppressed communities is too much for many current cops. McLay alienated many of his troops after just two months on the job when, after a meeting with anti-racism activists, he posted this photo on his Twitter account:


McLay closed his account and took down the photograph, but didn’t apologize for the sentiments expressed by the sign he carried. As the months and years passed, his transgressions against the cops continued.  He fired bully Stephen Matakovich, famously caught on video beating a teenager outside Heinz Field; he made cops work security for the hated Beyonce’s concert; he wouldn’t let them wear riot gear at a Trump event earlier this year; and, the final straw, he appeared at the Democratic National Convention in uniform.

McLay’s speech didn’t endorse Hillary Clinton, but the FOP usually endorses Republican presidential candidates, as it did again this year.  And what McLay was endorsing is much worse than Hillary Clinton to many cops – the sanctity of black lives.  McLay appeared during a DNC program segment featuring “Mothers of the Movement” – people who had lost loved ones to police violence including the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Hadiya Pendleton, and Sandra Bland.

This willingness to co-exist with the Black Lives Matter movement was too much for Pittsburgh FOP president Robert Swartzwelder and his backers.  They began pushing for a “vote.”

Right now McLay continues to have the backing of Mayor Peduto, city council and, most crucially, the black community. He will need all that support and more to stay the course in the months to come.  Changing the way oppressed communities are policed won’t do away with the oppression, but we’ll take any break we can get.

Do the wrong thing

Stephen Mader of Weirton tried to be a good cop, but he was fired last spring for refusing to shoot suspect Ronald Williams Jr. of Pittsburgh.  In official City of Weirton-ese, Mader “failed to eliminate a threat.”  The “threat,” a young distraught African-American, was carrying an unloaded weapon.

Mader was a Marine Corp veteran and had been on the Weirton force for less than a year.  He took his use-of-force training from both institutions seriously and when he was confronted with a suspect who was, in Mader’s judgment, mentally unstable and trying to commit “suicide by cop,” Mader refused to shoot and used words to calm the suspect down.  Unfortunately, two of his colleagues arrived late on the scene, got Williams so agitated  that he began waving the gun, so one of the newcomers shot him dead.

Mader felt bad about the whole affair but didn’t blame his coworkers, who didn’t have as much information to work with. However, Mader’s superiors – the chief of police and the city manager – knew a bad apple when they saw one and fired Mader, who refused out of principal to resign as that would have been an admission of wrongdoing.

Maybe Stephen Mader would like to come to Pittsburgh to work for Cameron McLay.

— James Collins

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day greetings to all those who work, once worked, are looking for work, or would like to work one day. It is through your efforts that others have food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care, products both necessary and superfluous, recreation and much more.  (Work goes a long way towards keeping you alive, too!) And on Labor Day, a special shout-out goes to members of North America’s labor unions.

The Labor Day holiday was first proposed and celebrated by trade unionists in the late 1800s. After the bloody Pullman Strike of 1894 – when the United States Army and Marshals Service killed striking workers – Congress voted unanimously to approve the federal holiday and President Grover Cleveland signed the legislation.  Neither Cleveland nor Congress were supporters of labor or the Pullman strikers, but they quickly rallied to mollify an angry public by supporting the creation of a national holiday.

So the creation of Labor Day was a bittersweet affair: organized labor and the working-class had become considerably restlessness and increasingly organized during the previous decade, continually battling employers and militias to improve their wages and conditions. In losing the railroad strike, labor won the grudging respect of the nation’s political leaders.

Sadly, organized labor today is almost as tiny a percentage of the workforce as it was 122 years ago, and it is nowhere near as class-conscious or militant. Still, there is much to celebrate on Labor Day 2016.  The union advantage for employees is well-known.  Although union workers now constitute only 11.1 percent of the workforce, the continued existence of unionized workplaces keeps wages, salaries and benefits from plummeting even lower, which is what employers and the capitalists would like to see.

In Pennsylvania, there were some 800,000 workers represented by unions in 2015, 14.4 percent of the workforce and up from 13.7 percent the year before. Only three states have more union members than Pennsylvania.

Criticisms of labor abound from the left and the right; we (and, we assume, many of our readers) would heartily join in the criticisms and debates raging on the left flank – but not today. Today we celebrate the women and men of labor, whose tenacious existence provide us with hope for better days – days of fairness on the job, economic justice and sanity.

In the days and years to come, organized labor – and entire working class, here in the United States and all over the world – will continue to confront a powerful capitalist class bent on continually restructuring the economy to increase profits, coopting labor and other potential opponents, and (always) deploying just the right amount of repression to keep things running smoothly.

We stand with all members of the working class, and their principled leaders, as we gird ourselves for the struggles to come.

— James Collins


No Peace, No Coffee at Zeke’s

I love my neighborhood. I have lived and worked in East Liberty for 15 years. When I bought my home,  Home Depot had already moved in. There were plans for the Whole Foods. I knew that some amount of gentrification would follow (you can argue that I contributed to it by moving in) but I had no idea just how much.

I was happy to move into a diverse neighborhood. Happier still when my neighborhood association lobbied to sell three properties on my street to Sojourner House as permanent housing for women in recovery with children.  Then I watched as things began to change. I watched as some of the businesses I loved began to close — Abay, then Shadow Lounge for example — to make way for more upscale (whiter) venues that were willing and able to pay the increasing rents.

Having worked in the business district for years, I love walking down Penn Ave — I know all the regulars on the street. It’s the small town feeling that I have grown to love so much about Pittsburgh over the years. I had to confront my own privilege recently when I realized that there was a sign posted outside my beloved local coffee shop.

I am embarrassed to admit that it had been there for about a month before I took notice, so I was obviously not the intended recipient of its message.

I started frequenting the coffee shop when it was in its original location on the other side of Penn Avenue than where it is now. When they were forced out of their location due to the property being acquired for more development, I empathized with their plight.

I donated as part of their fundraising efforts to stay alive and move to their current location across the street. I wanted to support a local business and not the Starbucks in the whitewashed “Eastside.”  I noticed the movie theater style barriers go up after they decided to put tables out on the sidewalks (for customers only). But it took me a while to see the sign:

                      image (1)

But when I did, I could not ignore it. Now? In this climate? When the police shooting and killing of black people is in the news regularly? When corporations and white-owned establishments are encroaching on a traditionally vibrant and proud black community? To sell coffee to white people in peace lest they be disturbed by the “local color?”

The coffee shop has been here. They knew what the neighborhood was. I cannot even begin to imagine what their expectations could have been to have resorted to this type of action.

The level of insensitivity to the issues of race and gentrification currently facing this neighborhood astounded me. I can’t help but believe that there is a better way. Hostility and aggression only beget the same in return, in my opinion. Rather than attempting an amicable and peaceful co-existence, this type of public display contributed to alienation and divisiveness. In trying to gain customers, they lost me.

I think that I reacted as strongly as I did because they were who they were: the underdogs, struggling to stay afloat in a progressively more expensive neighborhood.

After I let them know how I felt about the issue, one of the owners contacted me. He wanted to meet and talk. So we met. It was me, him and the manager of the cafe. He thanked me for coming in to talk. We sat outside at the tables for customers only. I asked what led to the placement of the sign. They described episodes of intoxicated people intimidating the female staff people, who said they were in favor of the sign.

Then I asked if it helped. They said “immensely.”

But that did not end the conversation. We kept talking. I explained my position. We brainstormed together and, as we sat out on the sidewalk on a busy Friday evening, I watched them interact with all the regulars, just like I do. In preparation for First Friday the atmosphere was festive and interactions were friendly and fun.

I asked if they would try a different kind of sign. One that conveys their intent, that they want their customers to have seating available without being hostile and threatening. In the end they agreed that they will try. They plan to now change the sign and see how that goes. I went in and bought a pound of coffee before I left.

And now?

I trusted that they had heard me and I believed them when they said that they would make a change. That was more than two weeks ago. I know that they are busy, as we all are, but I am hopeful that they have not simply forgotten or pushed it aside.

My optimism and faith in humanity drive both my belief that a new, less provocative and potentially dangerous sign would still yield the desired results and that the coffee shop owner and management will be true to their word.

I will not give up. If the sign remains I will continue to pursue the issue. I hope that others will notice as well and join me. But in the end, my hope is that I will be able to follow up with a photo of a new, improved sign and a report of positive effects.

Kim Kir

UPMC, the Justice Department, and “Justice”

Nothing shows that the private, “non”-profit health care system is an abysmal failure like the recent whistleblower, false-claims suit brought against University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) in Federal Court. While the wimpish Justice Department agreed to a settlement of only $2.5 million and failed to secure any admission of guilt, the exposure of appalling practices brought some credence to the fears and suspicions that swirl around UPMC patient care.

The public is indebted to the two doctors and a surgical technician, former employees of UPMC, for fearlessly standing up to the area’s largest employer and notorious bully. Drs. William Bookwalter and Robert Sciabassi and technician Anna Mitina have a commitment to patient health and well-being, a commitment uncommon in this era of health-care profiteering. I would gladly trust my health to them; others, I’m not so sure.

And kudos to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for giving the story more than a perfunctory news announcement. In follow-ups by writer Kris Mamula, many of the allegations that served as a basis for the suit were aired. Examples of overbilling, double-billing, unnecessary surgery, billing for unperformed surgery, and botched surgery were drawn from testimony. Patterns of incentivizing medical care through cost-cutting, short-cutting, and bill inflation were alleged. Others have documented that these practices are deeply embedded in the entire profit-driven private insurance and medical industry.

Given the enormous amount of advertising revenue (extracted ultimately from consumers) that UPMC passes through the media, the Post-Gazette assumed some risk in shedding light on UPMC sins.

Even more kudos to Tribune-Review columnist Kevin Heyl who scoffed at the paltry settlement concluded by the Justice Department:

UMPC suffered a barely perceptible bruise after being slapped on the wrist by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh. To settle some claims in the lawsuit alleging the hospital network overbilled Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, UPMC agreed to pay the federal government $2.5 million. (August 1, 2016)

Effectively employing satire, Heyl wrote:

“To come up with $2.5 million, they might have to search for the change underneath every cushion in (UPMC CEO) Jeff Romoff’s executive office couch,” the [fictional] observer said. “That could take seconds, perhaps even as long as a minute.”

Heyl went on to speculate that “the financial settlement likely distracted people from mediocre evaluations several UPMC hospitals received Wednesday in the latest federal government quality ratings. UPMC Mercy received two out of a possible four stars, as did UPMC Presbyterian and UPMC Shadyside, which were combined into one entity in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ratings.”

Reminding us that overbilling is not a new charge against UPMC, Heyl recalled that the health care/insurance behemoth “rebounded quickly from a similar injury suffered in 1998, when it paid the government $17 million after auditors uncovered another overbilling scheme.”

The “Justice” Department

Of course, no one should be surprised that the spineless Justice Department has shown such little enthusiasm in pressing UPMC. It was the Justice Department, after all, that could find no serious criminality in Wall Street moguls bringing the US economy to the edge of collapse.

And our local US Attorney, David L. Hickton, showed a similar timidity in choosing not to pursue a criminal case against the police who mugged a high school student, Jordan Miles. Instead, he told the Post-Gazette (November 9, 2013) that he’d prefer to address other issues: “‘Can we assemble 20, 30, 50 people who will look at the future?’ he asked, rather than dwell on past slights. ‘Are we going to develop a community intolerance for illegal guns? Are we going to develop a recognition that violence against police officers is as endemic as community violence?’” Hickton continues to “look at the future” well beyond police violence against African-Americans.

As for addressing the police violence that now draws widespread attention in the media, don’t expect much help from Attorney Hickton: “‘I’m trying to help,’ he cautioned, ‘but the communities are really going to be masters of their own fates.’” (P-G, 11-9-13)

Hickton reminds us again in a recent op-ed piece in the P-G (7-24-16) that his concept of civil rights is a little one-sided. He subjects the reader to a long diatribe on how police-community relations begin with respect for the police “who risk their lives every day to protect and serve the public and ensure the rule of law.” In a season of mass awareness of police violence against Black people, surely this focus  is a little misplaced, especially since cops commit one out of twelve of all killings in the US and the homicide rate for police (killings per 100,000 officers) is approximately the same as it is for the rest of the population.

It should not be surprising– since Hickton and the Justice Department have so little enthusiasm for making the police color between the lines–that they would be equally deferential to a powerful mega-corporation like UPMC.

Hopefully, there will be more legal actions addressing the grievances exposed by the settled whistle-blower lawsuit. However, it is difficult to have much confidence in the hesitant Justice Department. Some may experience even less confidence when they learn that the Justice Department’s representative in Western Pennsylvania is scheduled to speak on “Law Enforcement Meets Public Health” as part of a panel on opioid abuse at the UPMC’s fall conclave in late September at the luxurious Nemacolin Woodlands Resort. While a bit more law enforcement might be a welcome presence among UPMC’s top executives, some may wish for a less cozy relationship. No doubt Hickton will use the opportunity to deliver a searing rebuke of UPMC’s practices.

Well, maybe not.

Greg Godels

The Matter of Black Lives

The Black Lives Matter network (or Movement for Black Lives) stunned its critics and observers by coming up with a platform and list of six policy demands.  After a year of organizing and intense deliberations, BLM waited until the end of the Democratic National Convention in Philly to make its announcement.

Criticized as nothing more than a bunch of young rabble-rousers who like to take to the street but don’t have any vision, one might think this was a big step forward for BLM, right?  Not to the media.

According to various major media critics, this movement of young black people’s weaknesses include not having an identifiable leader; not speaking the “language” of white America; failing to court the African-American church; coming up with demands that don’t “poll well;” and failing to address black-on-black violence.

Let’s see what they said.  “We are a collective that centers and is rooted in Black communities, but we recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people; collective liberation will be a product of all of our work.” And who are these oppressed people?  Who oppresses them?

“While this platform is focused on domestic policies, we know that patriarchy, exploitative capitalism, militarism, and white supremacy know no borders. We stand in solidarity with our international family against the ravages of global capitalism and anti-Black racism, human-made climate change, war, and exploitation.”

No tired, John Lewis preacher-style pandering to liberals nostalgic for the 1950s and early 1960s here. No more mild rhetoric from people who used to breathe fire but are now thoroughly owned by neo-liberal Democratic Party money.

Over the past two years, they’ve rebuffed attempts to take over their movement by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Cornell West.  These young people know their history, know how to organize in the 21st century, and know that their interests do not lie in selling out for praise from their enemies.  For now, at least, there are no “super star” leaders to be coopted.  Just a growing, increasingly sophisticated collective of people who know that black — and all oppressed — lives matter.

Pittsburgh-area young people have been on the move too, as the large July demonstrations downtown demonstrate.  Opportunists are always lurking, however, just as honest disputes will arise.  Go to this website for official information on BLM:

And throw away the key?

Critics accuse African-Americans who are opposed to police killings of our people of ignoring black-on-black violence. We need not listen to them; their intentions are suspect.  We don’t expect the average white person to be privy to conversations in our homes and communities, but can’t they see the “Stop Shooting/We Love You” signs in windows and lawns where African-Americans live?  Are they unaware of the long-running New Pittsburgh Courier front-page campaign to embarrass and mobilize the black community by running a weekly tally of black homicide victims?

Yes, the poor and oppressed victimize their fellow poor and oppressed people.  Take the case of young Eric Taylor, of Duquesne.  Earlier this month, the 17-year-old was sentenced to 22 1/2 to 45 years in prison for a crime he allegedly committed when he was just 15.  The story goes something like this:

In 2014, young Taylor is said to have shot a pregnant 15-year-old girl (motive unclear), whose baby died.  LeRoy Powell — again, just 15 years old — testified at Taylor’s preliminary hearing.  District Attorney Stephen Zappala’s office made Powell’s testimony public — his name was all over the news — and he was shot down in broad daylight just days later.  The DA’s office later admitted that it “might not have” fully explained the risks to young Powell and his family or offered protection.  No one has ever been charged with Powell’s murder.

In sentencing Eric Taylor so harshly, Judge David Cashman said he took into consideration the fact that Taylor had committed two armed robberies at age 13.  Two armed robberies at 13 and a deadly gun crime at 15?!  Did Cashman consider what could have happened in the life of a child to cause him to behave so?  Does he, or any of those people who self-righteously condemn people like Eric Taylor, know or care?

The City of Duquesne is a glaring example of the results of deindustrialization, disinvestment and just plain abandonment by those politicians and capitalists who concoct what passes for social policy in the United States today.

In 2010, the average household income in Duquesne was just half the state average.  Its school district is so underfunded that it closed its high school, which had produced state champions in football and basketball, in 2009.  In 2012, it closed its middle school.  At its one remaining elementary school, 100 percent of the kids qualify for free or reduced-price meals, a fourth receive special education services, and less than one percent are designated gifted.  What the hell kind of place is that in which to grow up?

Is 17-year-old Eric Taylor related to — perhaps even the son of — another Eric Taylor of Duquesne, an alleged heroin kingpin, who was murdered in 2000?  Or perhaps he knew Terron Taylor, who was sentenced to prison for involvement in the same heroin ring, which also claimed as a member former Duquesne High School and Duquesne University basketball star Kevin Price?

What other life did young Taylor know?  What did Duquesne, the Mon Valley, Pittsburgh or US society have to offer him?  Or the older Eric Taylor, Terron Taylor, or even Kevin Price once his basketball days were over?  Is locking up a 17-year-old kid for the next two to four decades the answer?

The Black Lives Matter network doesn’t think so.  Among other things, they call for economic justice and demand “investments in the education, health and safety of Black people, instead of investments in the criminalizing, caging, and harming of Black people.”

So should we.  Eric Taylor, LeRoy Powell, and the young lady who was shot and lost her baby all deserve a better life.

— James Collins




Give it Back!


In the casino, the cardinal rule is to keep them playing and keep them coming back. The longer they play, the more they lose. In the end, we get it all.       Sam Rothstein (Robert DeNiro), Martin Scorcese’s Casino

The Rivers Casino has a monopoly on legal slot machine and table game gambling in the city of Pittsburgh. Apart from traveling to the Meadows in Washington County, the much longer trip to Erie, or a drive out of state, the Pittsburgh resident bent on spending Friday’s paycheck or throwing away the rent money has nowhere to go except to the temple of vulgarity on the city’s Northside (North Shore, to the sophisticates).

It was Governor Ed Rendell who demonstrated the genius of recovering all of the revenue lost to out-of-state slime balls exploiting addicted gamblers and returning it to Pennsylvania slime balls. Through his diligence, casino gambling arrived in Pennsylvania in 2004. The days of politicians encouraging citizens’ higher sentiments are obviously far in the past. Never mind that casino gambling, like the latest public health problem, opioid abuse, or alcoholism or mental illness are symptoms of an increasingly desperate poor and working class looking for a break and an escape from the myriad disappointments of life in an era of unparallelled inequality.

My own Puritan instincts aside, the monopoly status of the Rivers Casino, like similar government-granted monopolies, awards the owners with a license to plunder. One would expect that those granted such privileges would be suitably humble and appreciative.

But not so.

Back when the Pennsylvania Gaming Board was considering license applications, gambling enterprises were falling over each other, offering juicier and juicier deals to acquire the license to steal. Each contestant promised to fulfill an urban politician’s wish list from buying the Penguins a new arena to sharing large chunks of revenue with the county and city. Backs were bent and, no doubt, some money was offered to fixers and campaign war chests. At one point, then-Mayor Tom Murphy, purposely or accidentally, asserted that the “fix” was in for one applicant, sending the Gaming Board promptly in another direction. Maybe, the “fix” was aborted; maybe, the painfully sober Mayor Murphy was simply discovering a belated sense of humor.

At any rate, the license was granted in 2006 to an applicant who quickly defaulted on a $200 million loan. Rushing in to save the day was Holdings Acquisitions Company, a new partner that now holds a controlling interest in The Rivers Casino.

Part of the original deal was an agreement that the casino owners would pony up 2% of slot machine revenue or $10 million to the city every year, whichever was larger. This would not seem that much of a burden for a business that generates about $275 million a year in slot revenue and nearly $200 million in table game revenue. To give some sense of proportion, casino gross revenue is roughly 90% of the amount of money the City of Pittsburgh collects annually for its entire operating budget.

But the Rivers Casino doesn’t want to abide by the original agreement. They are willing to pay the lower amount, but not the minimum. The casino’s legal advisors cite a glitch in the original legislation that might allow them to escape the agreed terms. Moreover, they are suing to recover $65 million in what they consider back “overpayments.” Like the other entertainment venues that rely heavily upon public largesse to make their private bucks, the casino owners are allergic to giving anything back.

But it should come as no surprise that the owners of the casino aren’t ‘giving’ neighbors. They appealed their local property tax assessment that the county initially estimated at $278 million. They subsequently took their case to court, offering their own estimate of $94 million. The judge bent over backwards and fixed the assessment at $199 million.

Nor did the casino (joining the cheap skate Steelers and Pirates) want to continue subsidizing rides to their doorsteps through the publicly-financed tunnel.

The casino owners are notoriously allergic to paying taxes. In Illinois, a sister casino has maneuvered to avoid over $4 million in property taxes over a 5 year period. Though they paid $117 million for that operation, they argue that it’s only worth $62.9 million. Amazingly, the owners cling desperately to these persistently value-losing enterprises.

Beyond cursory, minimal fact-based news stories, our lap dog media has yet to cover owner Neil Bluhm’s various endeavors, possibly because he is a big-time ‘bundler’ of Democratic Party campaign contributions.

But I have a win-win solution to both the city’s revenue problems and the casino owner’s unwanted burdens: the city should buy back the casino and operate it as a public enterprise. Using the powers of eminent domain, the city could take on all the onerous financial responsibilities currently contested by the casino owners and still accrue net revenues for tax relief, pension funding, infrastructure improvements, etc. And, of course, the current owners could be generously compensated– not at the value they claim for their property ($94 million), not at the value negotiated ($199 million), but at the full value originally assessed ($278 million). In other words, Holdings Acquisitions Company could receive payment nearly three times greater than what they argue their casino is worth!

Of course that will never happen. There is not one elected official in Allegheny County with the spine to suggest, not alone press, such a solution. Every tired,  imaginable excuse would appear: government can’t do anything right, efficiently, or profitably; the law is not clear; the gaming commission will not approve it. But we could be sure that the casino owners would get the message and they would not take their casino and leave as the sports teams always threaten extortionately.

Instead, we get the Mayor’s weak pledge to fight to keep the original deal intact. Sure, like he and his predecessor fought to squeeze revenue from the non-profit free-riders or fought to get the sports teams to live up to their development commitments. Hasn’t happened.

Greg Godels